McCarty v. Menard, Inc.

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant-store’s motion for summary judgment in plaintiff-customer’s action, alleging that defendant was negligent in placement of one of its signs, and that said placement caused plaintiff to trip over one of sign’s protruding wooden legs. Dist. Ct. based its ruling on application of open and obvious doctrine, and although plaintiff claimed that he never saw sign, Dist. Ct. could properly have found that reasonable person would have noticed instant sign and protruding legs as tripping hazard, where plaintiff stated that he saw signs in store, chose stack of wood he wanted to purchase based on looking at signs, walked up to and worked within feet of instant sign and repeatedly stepped over it or turned toward it as he was handling wood. Plaintiff’s subjective testimony did not create triable issue as to whether reasonable person in his position would have been aware of sign, and defendant was not otherwise required to keep continuous monitoring of store to guard against known safety hazards.